Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[Pogo]

Yes, if you are asking about my personal believes and my personal reasons, chances say that it would be something subjective.



I understand the reference, but I dont see your point

Maybe you would prefer the London Bridge in Arizona?

 

[Pogo]

Nobody is guessing, in this hypothetical example there are hundreds of balls in the bowl and 50% of them are red and 50% are green………..and you are observing a person grabbing the balls with his eyes open.

And there are 2 hypotheses (intent and random chance)

My point is that if all the 10 balls that where picked where red, that would be evidence for intent………………despite the fact that any other combination could have also be the result of intent



This is the third time I ask………. Is getting 100% red balls evidence for intent? I need an direct yes or no answer

In the case that you have a being capable of intention as you describe in your premise yes, In the case of 10 red balls in a pile with no other information, no. Here you actually have something that can relate to probability, but without knowledge of a person with known properties, no intent is not probabilistically calculable.

 

[Pogo]

In the case that you have a being capable of intention as you describe in your premise yes, In the case of 10 red balls in a pile with no other information, no. Here you actually have something that can relate to probability, but without knowledge of a person with known properties, no intent is not probabilistically calculable.

Sorry, the fact you are missing is that in a random selection of an equal distribution, any sequence is just as probable as any other.

 

[Pogo]

Sorry, the fact you are missing is that in a random selection of an equal distribution, any sequence is just as probable as any other.

Digging back 40+years into my memory, it even has a name: The gamblers fallacy.

The gambler's fallacy is a cognitive bias that occurs when someone believes that a random event in the future is influenced by the frequency of past events. It's also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances.

Gambler's fallacy - Wikipedia

 

[leroy]

But the argument isn't about an alternative, at least not about the reason (if there is one) for existence (temporal cause is another matter), it's just that you haven't made your case in the least bit credible.

If we have some unsolved problem, and I just say, for example, "it was the fairies", you don't need to provide some alternative hypothesis to see that it's a bizarre and baseless assumption.

But if I tell you………”there are better alternatives than fairies”…you would be right in demanding me to provide and support an alternative

That is all I am saying

 

[leroy]

In the case that you have a being capable of intention as you describe in your premise yes, In the case of 10 red balls in a pile with no other information, no. Here you actually have something that can relate to probability, but without knowledge of a person with known properties, no intent is not probabilistically calculable.

(relevant words in red above)

Ok then join me and explain ratiocinator that he is wrong, that his “main problem” is really no a big of a deal


" @ratiocinator said: The main problem you run into with evidence for God is that god could have done anything "


In this hypothetical example the person "could have done anything" he has the ability to pick any balls that he wants in any ration that he whants (intent), and he also has the ability to simply pick the balls randomly … (the bowl has hundreds of balls and 50% of them are red and 50% green)



If you make an observation and note that this person picked 10 balls and all of them where red…………..you would accept that observation as evidence for the “intent hypothesis” (as you admitted previously above in red letters)..... in other words, before the observation you dont know if he is ether picking the balls randomly or with an intent...............after the observation of 100% red balls you now have good reasons to conclude "intent" rather than random chance

So despite the fact that the person “could do anything” that observation would still be evidence…………..meaning that the analogous "problem" “god could do anything” is not really a problem.

Do you understand?............if you disagree......... please explain this with your own words, explain my point with your own words


Note that in this case I am not making an argument for god, nor I am making the case that the balls are analogous to something in the universe………………my only argument is that the objection “god could do anything” is not a good objection. ………….so please stay on topic and make a relevant reply

 

[Pogo]

(relevant words in red above)

Ok then join me and explain ratiocinator that he is wrong, that his “main problem” is really no a big of a deal


" @ratiocinator said: The main problem you run into with evidence for God is that god could have done anything "


In this hypothetical example the person "could have done anything" he has the ability to pick any balls that he wants in any ration that he whants (intent), and he also has the ability to simply pick the balls randomly … (the bowl has hundreds of balls and 50% of them are red and 50% green)



If you make an observation and note that this person picked 10 balls and all of them where red…………..you would accept that observation as evidence for the “intent hypothesis” (as you admitted previously above in red letters)..... in other words, before the observation you dont know if he is ether picking the balls randomly or with an intent...............after the observation of 100% red balls you now have good reasons to conclude "intent" rather than random chance

So despite the fact that the person “could do anything” that observation would still be evidence…………..meaning that the analogous "problem" “god could do anything” is not really a problem.

Do you understand?............if you disagree......... please explain this with your own words, explain my point with your own words


Note that in this case I am not making an argument for god, nor I am making the case that the balls are analogous to something in the universe………………my only argument is that the objection “god could do anything” is not a good objection. ………….so please stay on topic and make a relevant reply

@leroy, all you are demonstrating with your crayons is that you do not understand neither logic or probability.
If in your situation you had an entity that was known to be capable of selection< for example a colador, then looking at a pile of seeds relative to the tomato pulp you had prior you could determine a probability that this colador might have been used

ETC god damn autocorrect.

 

[leroy]

Because it isn't an explanation. It explains exactly as much as if you said "it's magic, innit?"

Why not? The claim is that the best explanation for the origin of the universe is that the universe is the effect of something else, with properties like being timeless, space less immaterial personal etc. that I happen to call god, you can call it however you whant.

Under what basis do you claim that this is not even an explanation ?.................what does “not being an explanation” even mean?

 

[leroy]

@leroy, all you are demonstrating with your crayons is that you do not understand neither logic or probability.
If in your situation you had an entity that was known to be capable of selection< for example a colador, then looking at a pile of seeds relative to the tomato pulp you had prior you could determine a probability that this colador might have been used

ETC god damn autocorrect.

Please explain the point that I made with your own words

 

[Pogo]

Please explain the point that I made with your own words

When you show me the evidence that you have successfully completed a course in basic probability.

 

[leroy]

And it still hasn't sunk in.

OR perhaps you are the one who is not understanding

There is a difference, in relativity between timelike and spacelike distances, but 'flowing' and having to traverse them, is not what it is. The past of your birth (or any other event) isn't even a single direction, it's a region of space-time. It looks like this:

Yes I understand and grant that (atleast for the sake of this discussion) however that doesn’t changes the fact that my birth is a consequence of a *causally prior* chain of events………which could have not been infinitely long……(note that the term “causally prior” is an tensless term that doesn’t mean “before”)

Premiss 2 is just wrong.

Well worst case scenario, premise 2 is worded with the incorrect terms…………this is not a big problem in my opinion.

The point of premise 2 is that you where not born as a consequence of an infinitely long chain of causally prior events ……. If “begin to exist “ is not the correct term, then please feel free to use any other term.

The word 'supernatural' means nothing to me.

Regardless, how can we know anything about such a reason, if it exists,

You can use supernatural or any other label, the point is that if you don’t reject claim that “something” is the reason for the universe, then you are not rejecting the conclusion of the KCA, all you are doing is changing the wording

and why can't we just ask about its reason (other than special pleading)?


Exactly. In relativity, 'now' is no more significance than 'here'.

you can ask whatever you want, the point is that the truth of conclusion of the KCA would has no bearing on how I answer to that question .

once you grant that the universe had a cause or a reason or however you want to call it, we can move on an deal with that other question

 

[leroy]

When you show me the evidence that you have successfully completed a course in basic probability.

again.......Please explain the point that I made with your own words

If you don’t do that your post will be ignored

 

[Pogo]

again.......Please explain the point that I made with your own words

If you don’t do that your post will be ignored

Like I said, when you have sufficient education and understanding to be able to deal with the answer.

I can't explain calculus to a 5 year old and we can't explain your errors to you because you just don't have the background.
Find a local adult education location and take a basic probability course, your latest mistake will be one of the first things covered.

 

[GoodAttention]

Yes.

Then why do atheists exist?

 

[GoodAttention]

Which is why I'm an atheist, because I can't honestly deceive myself this way.

What you can’t do is generate a positive experience in a belief beyond reality.

Your positive experiences rely on your physical environment alone, so the “hit” you would get from expressing your ego is self gratification at best or parasitic at worse.

The best atheist is a non-theist.

 

[ratiocinator]

Nobody is guessing...

Everybody is guessing when it comes to the reason for existence.

in this hypothetical example there are hundreds of balls in the bowl and 50% of them are red and 50% are green………..and you are observing a person grabbing the balls with his eyes open.

And there are 2 hypotheses (intent and random chance)

My point is that if all the 10 balls that where picked where red, that would be evidence for intent………………despite the fact that any other combination could have also be the result of intent

You could conclude intent regardless of what balls are picked in this case. That's what humans do. If they'd closed their eyes and rummaged around in the bowl one could conclude that the intent was to try to randomise the pick. If they keep their eye open and pick balls out while paying attention, then it's intentional, regardless.

This is all irrelevant to the point.

 

[ratiocinator]

Why not?

Yet again: because it could explain anything.

The claim is that the best explanation for the origin of the universe is that the universe is the effect of something else...

Now you're back to cause and effect. There is no evidence or sound logic that leads us to the conclusion that the universe needs a cause. In fact, it's incoherent for the reasons explained at great length already.

...with properties like being timeless, space less immaterial personal etc.

Fairytale. Something timeless couldn't do anything, let alone cause anything, 'personal' seems to be a just made up to try to bang the square peg of your view of God into the round hole you think you've found.

 

[Valjean]

Then why do atheists exist?

Huh?
What does the ability to believe in unicorns have to do with atheism?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Huh?
What does the ability to believe in unicorns have to do with atheism?

Or the belief that the universe is natural. One version of atheism is the lack of belief/disbelief in gods, nothing else.

The general ability to believe in something without evidence is not restricted to theism.

 

[GoodAttention]

Huh?
What does the ability to believe in unicorns have to do with atheism?

The lack of ability, not the unicorns.